Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32205903›Full record

ArticleIASSIST quarterly2020

Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB Members, and data repository curators.

Jessica Mozersky, Heidi Walsh, Meredith Parsons, Tristan McIntosh, Kari Baldwin, James M DuBois

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IASSIST quarterly, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica MozerskyBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Heidi WalshBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Meredith ParsonsBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Tristan McIntoshBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Kari BaldwinBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
James M DuBoisBioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
SHARING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DATA: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL BARRIERSR01HG009351 · NHGRI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI James M Dubois · 2017 to 2026
$4.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG009351
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups.

Indexed as

attitudesdata curatorsinterviewsIRB membersQualitative data sharingqualitative researchresearch ethicsresearch personnel

Identifiers

PMID32205903
PMCPMC7089584
OpenAlexW3000457005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.